I would agree that much of the original Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) had “assimilation devices” built in. However, the 1991 amendments and more than one hundred amendments since have addressed many of these concerns. Currently, there are bills in the House and Senate that continue to amend ANCSA.

Through 7(i) sharing, the native corporation I belong to receives funds that keeps our corporation’s doors open and allows us to employ shareholders. Of course, the bulk of this money comes from oil and mining through successful ventures of NANA, Arctic Slope and others.

In the recent “Alaska Business Monthly” list of top 49 Alaskan-owned companies, two-thirds are Alaska Native. Eight out of the top ten Alaska businesses are Native Corporations. Economic strength provides Alaska Native Corporations the ability to make significant positive changes for their tribal shareholders and their respective communities. They are major stakeholders in Alaska and relevant players in today’s world. This is not all bad news.

I am in agreement that Alaska Native corporations “aren’t all bad news.” This was not the statement I was making in those articles. I pointed out the fundamental injustices. If you speak with the original Alaska Native activists of the time, they will all attest to the fact that it was not a settlement with Alaska Natives, rather a unilateral decision by Congress. For example, they tried to push for a 2% royalty on resource developments, which was removed in a closed door Congressional decision. We need our people to have business institutions, but we can’t allow our tribal rights to continue to be undermined. It is in our tribes that our Indigenous rights and traditional cultures thrive.